"Cognitive dissonance. One of the most irritating human traits."
I Power
Scientific Research & Self-Development Activism
What is our problem?
reposting from my blog-
What is our problem? what is 'the real problem'?
We don't care. Humanity doesn't care about preserving good humanity for all. Insofar as that, we have a fundamental problem that manifests itself through the various cracks in society. Look at law where it continues to meet pyramid schemes and identity theft and street crime. Look at the world military forces. What are they here for? It is a complex system built over, ultimately, an individualist cause/effort for every human being on the planet (which then brings conflict due to limited resources, basically). This is the system; the world that we have created as a society. It could be very different if we behaved differently at a fundamental level; and yet in a day that we have long had the capabilities to launch things into space, we do not understand or manage this number of human beings across the planet. We have failed in that regard. And yet, in every visible spot; in every corner of mainstream culture and in every item of propaganda, lies denial of these facts.
Or in scientific terms;-
The vast majority of human beings not being intrinsically motivated to care for the vast majority of human beings.
Every other human issue falls in line observing this as the root cause.
Whether we 'care about the world' (ultimately a personal/social self image);
http://ruthlesstruthdotcom.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/better-more-lovin...
Our condemnations lock us in this assumption, lock us into a fictional world of good and evil, where our screaming need to be good makes us demonise others. Jews, women, your neighbour with the cat, whatever.
Even things like "Anti-Racism" or environmental crusading, other things more palatable to our society, even if they do address important things (and racism is bad, and the environment does need looking after) rapidly become this.
This critical insecurity - "am I good?" - arises when humans condemn.
Ownership;
http://askville.amazon.com/buy-house-government-owns/AnswerViewer.d...
So when you buy a house, the government still owns it?
Personal safety & security / having a home;
http://askville.amazon.com/bf-live-CA-broke-owns-house-job-kick/Ans...
My bf and I live in CA, we just broke up and he owns the house. I don't have a job. Can he kick me out now?
Non-trust arises because of all these human problems: because fundamental needs of humans are not recognized and set out enough to be comfortable with someone else managing them. Why is this not considered possible? We're all human; surely we can come up with the realistic aspects of freedom that we would ever need. Why can't you go into someone else's house and ask to use the facilities? Why can't you sleep in public places rich enough for glass walls and empty shop fronts? Why don't we consider the demands people make about the abundance of properties not being used commercially instead of housing homeless people? This notion of trust seems to run right through it; this sense that.. would you feed another person on the street? Not a homeless person; just any person. Would you trust them to use that sandwich or whatever, well? Do you care? Because that is a very important question. Although you have probably never heard it before. It is a self-suicide to be in a world where nobody cares deeply for each other. This is part of the core religious teachings given to humanity all those years ago, in the hope that we would learn from it and overcome the individualist nature of what still very clearly dominates what we do. Trust can't happen if we don't communicate, and communicating is definately not something we do today. We speak, but the words are rarely even both sincere and thoughtful. Governments and companies and teachers lie for professionalism; this is the 'communication' we preach; it is what we bring to the next generation each time. It's not trust that emerges out of that. That should be no surprise. The world is more what influences young people than parents.
Every human being wishes for love and acceptance, and so on. A simple set of needs. And yet, we do not apply this knowledge to good effect. Surely, then, our actions would seem to be absurd in the interests of ourselves & our personal care- creating a world in which safety is dynamical and dependent on a direct income seems pretty stupid, no matter who it is doing the creating.
So, Why do this? Why continue this, when we today have the ability to turn it around? Why not talk about the problems we face as a civilization and why we face them, intrinsically/inherently, at a fundamental level?
It's a simple question.
Tags: critical-thinking, existence, humanity, philosophy, reality, society, world
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by March E. on -
I believe that the culture and the system does a good job at keeping people more focused on work, what to feed your family at the end of he day, who does what etc... There are times that I'm beginning to think that those of us who are somewhat well off are very spoiled compared to the rest of the human beings on the planet, which could be why we aren't "motivated" to change. There has been a study done before that shows that rich people are less likely to give than poorer people. It probably goes deeper than that though. I find that a lot of people have no f****** clue about what goes on. They just care about the now and what they can get from it. I'm surrounded by them everyday.
What you can do (sometimes) is strike conversations with people when you go out about these issues. Some people my not like it or they may try to avoid it, and maybe you'll get into a heated argument, but the main thing is to get them thinking about it at least. Because a lot people don't think about these issues. Or they don't want to because it makes them uncomfortable.
The links are very interesting. Thank you for sharing :)
-
Permalink Reply by Lore on -
"I find that a lot of people have no f****** clue about what goes on. They just care about the now and what they can get from it. I'm surrounded by them everyday."
I can relate to this a lot March. Though another thing I've been observing is people who think that a lot of these things are out of their control so there is no point in trying. While I'd say it is true to some extent that a lot of this is out of a person's control, I don't think it is entirely.
Take for example world hunger; obviously that is something that is beyond an individual's control but they could help out at a food pantry to put a dent in hunger.
-
Permalink Reply by Sorlaize on -
"I find that a lot of people have no f****** clue about what goes on. They just care about the now and what they can get from it. I'm surrounded by them everyday."
yeah I have to agree with this too. I would say there's plenty of things to learn, knowing what I know, about the world and how we can change things. It all starts with being open to new realizations and changing how you can think. On that basis alone, there could be said to be a huge problem with how we run the world and how we live.5 Reasons the Zombie Apocalypse is the Prevailing Metaphor for Our ...
-
Permalink Reply by steven.a.a.bauer on -
Maybe my view on this is oversimplified, but I'm going to put it out there anyways.
There are two concepts working here: individual and group
Everyone, is only out for themselves (an individual). The most "holy", moral of people are always out for themselves at every single moment of the day. Even when doing good for others, I believe they are still acting only in their own best interest.
The reason I think anyone is out for the group is because experience has taught them that there is safety and prosperity in numbers and in working together. I know I couldn't enjoy the many freedoms and riches I have today if I was out on my own foraging the forest for food with a pointy stick or a rock (which is what I personally would be reduced to without modern technology...those are the best tools I can make with my own 2 hands and I can't personally generate a grocery store's worth of food)
The problem is, not everyone has realized this...and even those who have, well, they've created more problems the other way with the idea of self sacrifice and other things (death for the sake of the group...something which I think is noble, but should be unnecessary).
We have two "opposite" sides as a result. One favors the individual over the group and on favors the group over the individual. (This is absurdly present in all political ideology).
Both sides must realize that it is futile to only favor one and not favor both. It leads to hate, violence, and everything else which is both bad for the individual and for the group. Political solutions must be able to satisfy every individual and group involved in the problem and until they do so, nothing will change.
-
Permalink Reply by Anthony D on -
Something that i would definitely advise you read is the work by the philosopher John Rawls in his Theory of Justice. He makes quite a lot of interesting points on your thesis of how we look at the majority. What he states in a very short sense of the word is this. He starts with the concept of a social contract (not unlike Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau), in which he explains that government is a function of people sacrificing amounts of their personal power for the common good/ individual safety. Again, not a particularly new concept.
His point after that is very interesting, he says no ruler could ever have an objective view and can thereby be trusted to act in the common good. So he states that we should have a "veil of ignorance". This means that the ruler(s)/government should be detached from society and cared for in his basic needs so that they have no personal stake in society.
the best example of this can be found in the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, where the man who rules the universe is a simple guy in a shack who doesn't even know whether the people he is making decisions about exist.
In this case, humanity could theoretically work toward the common good.
-
Permalink Reply by Sorlaize on
-
Again, I say this with sincerity and due respect. A number of you in this collective are simply feeding each others various forms of depression. This is the Empathic mirror neuron effect occurring too often in the iPower project. It is a forgivable reoccurance, but it is not a healthy or prosperous reoccurance.
For me, depression is part of the nature of thinking about this stuff. So I embrace it. Julian Assange's words;-
Perhaps as an old man I will take great comfort in pottering around in a lab and gently talking to students in the summer evening and will accept suffering with insouciance.
But not now; men in their prime, if they have convictions are tasked to act on them
So, for me, I see it as "do or die". I choose depression & nihilism over non-action.
Forum
Condemning others to validate ourselves.
Started by Lore in I Power: Self-Development Activism. Last reply by Nathaniel Mortazavi 1 hour ago. 9 Replies 0 Likes
The ethical implications of "Temporal Isolation"
Started by Aya in Off-Topic. Last reply by Aya yesterday. 34 Replies 1 Like
Lexical argumentation and its merit
Started by Anthony D in Off-Topic. Last reply by Anthony D on Thursday. 21 Replies 0 Likes
Latest Activity
Nathaniel Mortazavi replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."Absolutely, I completely agree. The only way to solve the problem is to eliminate the cause.
Exactly, the shooter gains worldwide fame over night. Why would a resentful, friendless, lonely, insane young man who wanted to leave an impression on the…"
Aya replied to Aya's discussion The ethical implications of "Temporal Isolation""From the last three lines of your post, I'm assuming you are applying the "better safe than sorry" mentality to life-rights over all of time. This addresses points 3) and 5) of my post on Wed 5/15, but does not address points 1),…"
Isaac Renshaw joined The Shiznit's group
Creating Your Own "Crew"
This is a Group for people who are interested in the idea of expanding I-Power by encouraging our members to create I-Power/SDA related cell groups, or "Crews" in their own communities.See More
Isaac Renshaw joined The Shiznit's group
The Transition Movement
The Transition Movement is a grassroots Network of communities that are working to build resilience in response to peak oil, climate change, and economic instability. Utilizing various concepts such as Permaculture and Local Currency systems, the…See More
Anthony D replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."An issue in the context of your reply is the so-called "mad/bad debate". And it very much plays into the perception of these rather extreme forms of criminal behavior.
From a legal and forensic psychological standpoint a…"
Lore replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."Interesting. I think that just being aware that our behavior is not always justified and taking on some personal responsibility can go a long way."
Lore replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."Maybe I take empathy and attempting to understand such actions by people to the extreme, but I think it is important to understand the causes of such behavior. You do bring up a good point about school shootings Nathaniel, in that the media makes…"
Nathaniel Mortazavi replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."I agree with the principle to an extent. However, in the case of school shooters, I don't think it can be justified. Same with rape. There's definitely a line, but like you said, those are the most extreme cases.
On the topic of mass…"
© 2013 Created by Reese Leysen.
